"switch to" window when I start SE ST3 with addin

Hi,

 

I have .NET that is working well from ST2 release.

When ST3 appears, I just recompile my project with ST3 COM references and register my addin with the standard process.

When I Start ST3 I get a system window with title bar "Server busy" (as in attachment of the message),[attachment:1]server busy.jpg[/attachment]

but text is in french). If i do nothing, ST3 is started anyway and I can see my addin loaded.

If I restart again ST3, the message doesn't appear again.

So, I suspected that it was depending of the speed where ST3 starts.

But, If I install the same addin on another computer (without Visual Studio... windows 7 x64), this window is always displayed each time I start ST3.

 

Do you have any idea how to hide this window ?

Is it depending of architecture ? I have this in ST3 x64.

Is it depending of the way I compile my porject ? I'm using VS2010 on Windows 7 x64 and I've compiled with x64 COM references. I generate interop with the tool we find in SDK's SE installation.

Is it depending of the way I write my code ? May I miss someting ?

 

Thanks for your help

Gots

 

Posted by: gauthier chauvin
Post date: 3/14/2012 5:41:35 PM

1 REPLY

Re: "switch to" window when I start SE ST3 with addin

I can't think of a situation that would cause this in an in-process addin. You can read about this topic in this MSDN article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ms228772.aspx]How to: Fix 'Application is Busy' and 'Call was Rejected By Callee' Errors but the problem should only be for external out-of-process applications. We also covered this topic in the Solid Edge SDK. Search for keyword 'OleMessageFilter' in the SDK.

 

Without seeing what you're doing in your code, it's difficult to guess what the problem is. My advice in situations like this is to use 'process of elimination' to find the problem. What I mean by that is disable (remark) as much of your code as possible to get down to the bare minimum that you need for the addin to load and see if the problem still exists. If it does not, unremark pieces of code one at a time and continue the process until you've isolated the problem.

 

Posted by: Jason Newell
Post date: 3/14/2012 5:52:25 PM